Notification texts go here Contact Us Buy Now!

Presence of the Past Communal Harmony in the Mughal Religious Policies

 By: Salim Zaweed

This seminar is on the legacy of communal harmony in India’s history and culture, I  thought I would speak on how the Mughal religious policies and its various aspects has been  looked at into the possible and manageable manner to test with the evidence we have in the  contemporary Persian sources. Basically, it is a survey of policies what has been held to be  the major features for maintaining communal harmony by the Mughal emperors. 

It is quite a ‘modern’ trend to place the roots of communal tensions and violence at  the doorsteps of the ‘medieval’ period, and blame it all on a ‘medieval mindset’. This trend is  discernible not only in journalistic works, but also reflected in some serious scholarship.1 The  notion of majority and minority communities, according to Romila Thapar, is a modern,  nineteenth century notion, based on the idea of numbers and of representation with reference  to the numbers following a particular religion. The treatment of Hindu2 and Muslim society  as monoliths by historians, she says, has tended to ignore the more important questions about  these societies such as, how do various religious groups perceive each other?3 

Muzaffar Alam in one of his papers has shown that the scale of coordination between  the Hindu and Muslim under the Mughals was such that ‘many of the local Hindu elites  began to identify themselves, to a certain degree, not simply with the Mughal State system,  but also with the Mughal Persian culture’. This, according to him, can be explained by the  ‘religious and cultural traditions’ as they matured and grew in medieval times.4

The young seventeen year old conqueror of Sindh, Muhammad ibn Qasim (r.711- 715), had stated that the Hindus should be treated in the same way as the ahl al-kitab5 in the  central regions of the Muslim world.6 During the fifteenth century, the processes of Hindu Muslim rapprochement or coming together had moved in the intellectual and cultural fields  as well as in the political sphere. Kabir, Nanak and many others bhakti saints had opened  their doors to all, irrespective of their faiths, rejecting differences based on scriptural  authority and traditions. Politically, in many of the provincial kingdoms, such as Gujarat,  Malwa and Kashmir we find Hindus being given appointments not only at the local but also  at the central level. Under the Lodis, some Hindu rajas were raised to the positions of amirs. 

The rise of Hemu to a premier position after the death of Islam Shah was a reflection of this  process. 

When the Mughals came to power in 1526 they took over many of the religious  organizations established under the previous Turkish and Afghans dynasties which had ruled  northern India from the time of Mahmud of Ghazni.7 During Babur’s short reign little time  remained for a change in the religious offices. Humayun largely followed the inherited  practices. 


With Akbar, the period of changes begins. Akbar’s ideologue Abul Fazl prepared a  working manual (dastur al-amal) for his officials with advice on how to protect the principles  of justice and equity (itidal) and of non-interference in matters of the faith of the people.  “And you [the state officials] should not interfere (ta arruz) in any person’s religion. For, if a  wise person in a transient mundane matter does not go for a thing that harms, how can he  then choose loss in a matter of faith, which pertains to the world of eternity? If he is right then [when you interfere in his religion] you oppose the truth; and if you have the truth with  you and he is unwittingly on the wrong side, he is a victim of ignorance and [therefore]  deserves compassion and help, not interference and resistance. You should be kind,  beneficent and friendly to all.8 

He proved his intention of creating possibilities for a peaceful coexistence between  the different religious groups of his empire, first by forbidding the enslavement of the wives  and children of rebellious villagers in 15629, remitting pilgrimage-tax at Mathura and other  sacred places in 156310 and jazya11 in 156412, likewise, restrictions against the building of  places of public worship were removed. In the same year, he gave the first land grant to the  temples of Vrindaban which continued for the Aurangzeb’s period also.13 Furthermore, there  was a natural temptation for the State to tax cattle herds (gāu shumārī) or levy grazing duty  (kāh charāī). We have several imperial farmāns where the exemption was given over these  taxes. Thus a farmān of Akbar of March 1581 granting exemption to Radha- Vallabhi priest  Birthalrai ‘Brahman’ seated at Gokul to graze his cattle without any constraint both in the  khālisa (imperial reserve territory) and in the jāgīrs.14 Then there were farmāns of 1588 and  1593 where the exemption was given to grazing the bulls and cows of Govardhan, Mathura,  Sahar, Mangtola and other places.15 This policy is also continued under the successive reigns. Early in 1658 Dara Shikoh issued an order to remit gāu-shumārī on the cattle of the Govind  Dev temple of Vrindaban. In 1659 under Aurangzeb an order was issued addressed to  officials of pargana Mahaban remitting gāu-shumāarī on the cows of the Govind-Dev,  Gopinath and Madan Mohan temples (all of Vrindaban), grazing in the vicinity of Man  Sarovar.16 Not only that, he remitted more than 80 customary taxes early in his reign, in  Khafi Khan’s words, to ‘alleviate suffering’ caused the people by war and drought17 included  rahdari (road-toll), pandari (on commercial real estate, from the street vendor to the banker),  buz-shumari (on goats), bargadi wa charai (on grazing), banjarah (on petty grain  merchants), and tawanah (on Sufi ‘urs and Hindu jatra festivities). 

Akbar’s attempts to seek a reconciliation between Hinduism and Islam becomes clear  from his numerous marriages with Rajput ladies- beginning with the daughter of Bharmal  Kachhawaha in 1564.18 The ladies were allowed to continue their customs and their worship  inside the palace, which is evident from numerous available contemporary literary sources  and paintings. The mothers of Jahangir and Shahjahan were both Rajputs women. In 1583 he  ordered that no wife should be forced to follow her husband on the funeral pyre.19 This action  went together with Akbar’s attempt to raise Hindus to high positions. Birbal, who had joined  Akbar soon after his accession and enjoyed great favour with him, was not prevented from  carrying with him and worshipping idols while he accompanied Akbar. The keeping of the  revenue records had always been a domain of the Hindus, such as Todar Mal, was appointed  minister of finance for the first time.20 This attitude changed dramatically in Akbar’s time in  1594-95, we find 8 Hindus among the twelve provincial finance ministers.21 

Many painters who lived at Akbar’s court were Hindus whose style was increasingly  refined under the influence of Persian artists, and many of their miniature paintings and  illustrations of the great epics are of breathtaking beauty.22 The Hindus Govardhan and  Basawan were among Akbar’s most appreciated artist.23 

 One should not forget that a considerable number of Hindu writers enjoyed Akbar’s  patronage, and Sanskrit learning was encouraged by the court.24 Scholarly works, especially  the treatises about astrology, were appreciated by the Mughals up to the reign of Shahjahan.  Other Hindus use Hindi for their poetic works, such as the great Tulsidas, a friend of Akbar’s  leading commanders, the khan-i khāna and Man Singh, appear several times among those  honoured by the rulers.25

The mystical aspect of Hinduism proved quite attractive to the Mughal rulers. We  have several paintings show scenes of meeting between the ruler and a yogi, in particular to  Akbar, Jahangir and Dara Shikoh. We read that Ganga Rishi came to Akbar during his stay in  Kashmir, and Jahangir was fascinated by the yogi Jadrup Gosain in Ujjain in 1617 and  Mathura as he tells in his Tuzuk26. 

In his new capital, an ībadatkhāna (house of worship) was erected in 1575. There the  emperor could listen to the debates between theologians and representatives of the different  schools of Islamic thought and practices to the sole objective was “to ascertain the Truth and  discover the reality”. At beginning, the ībadatkhāna debates were open exclusively to  Muslims. From 1578, Akbar opened the doors of debate to members of the other religions of  the subcontinent- Hindus, Jains, Zoroastrians and from 1580 onwards, some Christians. The  meetings were held on Thursday and Fridays. But the constant quarrel and the desire to  establish their superiority over the others, brought growing discredit and upset to Akbar and  closed the ībadatkhāna debate practically in 1581, but finally in 1582. The purpose was to  persuade the leaders of different sects and faiths to abjure their differences, and to arrive at  commonly accepted truths, such expectation was not likely to be fulfilled. However, the  debates had two important consequences: first, they convinced Akbar that all religions had  elements of truth, and that all of them led to the same Supreme Reality. These understanding  led to the evolution of the concept of sulh-i kūl or peace between all religions. 

Akbar believed that communion with God was possible by turning oneself to Him  through meditation. Likewise, he considered slavish imitation or taqlid of traditional  practices to be unnecessary for a true believer. In 1581, the Dīn-i Ilahī, also called Tauhīd-i  Ilahī, was promulgated.27 It was an order or brotherhood rather than a new religion.28 The  charge against Akbar that he renounced Islam is buttressed by the Jesuit Fathers such  Monserrate29 and orthodox Muslims like Badauni30, the Dīn-i Ilahī seemed to mean that ‘the  emperor had willingly and wittingly left Islam and now posed as the founder of a new  religion’31. According to I. H. Qureshi, ‘Akbar did not ask his followers to abjure Islam, as  has been wrongly asserted by some historians, but he asked them to abjure the orthodox form  of it’.32 Abul Fazl means the concept to Akbar ‘being the spiritual guide of the people’, has  been discussed in a section in the Āin-i Akbari as‘Āin rahnamūnī’, which has been wrongly  translated by Blochman as “Ordinances of the Divine Faith”.33 He also quotes two of the  sayings of Akbar: “By guidance is meant indication of the road, not the gathering together of  disciples...” and “To make a disciple is to instruct him in the service of God, not to make him  a personal attendant”. These two sayings reflect more accurately the spirit of Akbar’s claim  to spiritual leadership. 

It is also important to note that, Akbar started enrolling disciples around 1580, the  time when he was distracted by rebellions in the east which was supported by some of the  orthodox ulema. His brother, Mirza Hakim, had also advanced into the Punjab. This was also  the time when the Uzbek power in Central Asia had become menacing. In this situation,  Akbar wanted absence of sectarian and religious strife in the country, and complete loyalty  towards him on the part of nobility. J. F. Richards, says “Discipleship was an extremely  effective means to assimilate a heterogeneous body of nobles and bind them to the throne”.34 In other words Akbar created a tradition of implicit loyalty to the Mughal throne. The Tauhīd  -i Ilahī was purely a political device. He was trying to build a state and nobility which neither  Hindus nor orthodox Muslim and new polity based on the principles of liberalism, justice and  equal treatment of all faiths. 

The madadd-i māsh or revenue free grants to the scholars, men engaged in spiritual  pursuits, indigent, widows and respectable men without any employment, were held earlier  only by Muslims. But under Akbar we have seen that grants of land being given to the  temples of Vrindavan, and the jogis of Jakhbar. After 1580, the number of non-Muslim  grantees steadily increased and rent-free grants were granted to Hindus, Jains, Parsis.35 Saints  and ascetics who had no worldly desires also began to receive cash grants in increasing  numbers. Akbar built two establishments outside Fathpur Sikri to feed poor Hindus and  Muslims. The one for the Hindus was called Dharmapura, and that for the Muslims  Khairpura.36 Thus, through the above mentioned harmonious steps, he able to create a state  became essentially secular and liberal in matters of religion and state policy, and promoted  cultural integration.  

Jahangir more or less stays on his father’s liberal attitude towards the Hindus. His act  of breaking an idol with a boar’s head is well justified by him in his Tuzuk.37 Nevertheless, no  temples were destroyed during his rule. 

Under Shahjahan, no proselytising activities of the Hindus were allowed. Hindu poets  lived at court and were highly esteemed by the ruler- we need only to remember  Chandarbhan Brahman, Dara Shikoh’s secretary whose detailed descriptions of the activities  and peculiarities of Shahjahan’s court are found in his Chahār Chaman or ‘Four Meadows’38.  S. R. Sharma in his The Religious Policy of the Mughal Emperors, enlisted an appendix of  Sanskrit writers of the Mughal period.39 

The period of Aurangzeb considered to be the most fanatic and puritan in relation to  the communal harmony. However recent scholarly research done by historians like Satish  Chandra, M. Athar Ali, and Richard M. Eaton etc. shows that Aurangzeb has been the worst  victim of prejudiced writing in history. Whereas some feels that Aurangzeb reversed the  Akbar’s policy of religious toleration and thus undermined the loyalty of the Hindus to the  empire, in turn, leading to the popular uprising. I start here with a quote from Jadunath  Sarkar’s, Studies in Mughal India, “From the strict path of a Moslem king’s duty as laid down in the Quranic Law nothing could make him deviate in the least. And he was also  determined not to let others deviate. Neither fear of material loss nor the influence of a  favourite, no tears or supplication, could induce him to act contrary to the Shara (cannon  law). Flatters styled him a living saint (Alamgir zinda-peer)”.40 It is difficult to understand  why, if the premises of the syllogism are in favour of Aurangzeb, the conclusion has been  drawn against him. How far from the truth this allegation is can be borne out by a study of the  lives Holy Prophet Mohammad (peace be on him) and his Khalifas. If Aurangzeb is a strict  follower of sharia than obviously he didn’t forget the Divine command: “La ikraha fiddeen” or ‘no compulsion in religion’, which was strictly followed by the Holy Prophet (peace be on  him) and his Khalifas.41

 Soon after his rise to power, he published several religious regulations to please the  orthodox ulemas. In the eleventh year of his reign [1669], Aurangzeb took a number of  measures which have been called puritanical, but many of which were of an economic and  social character, or the against superstitious beliefs or Islamic spirit. The forbidding of tika or saffron paste on the forehead, public display of holi and muharram processions were  considered to be against the Islamic spirit. Now we move to the other measures of Aurangzeb  that may be called discriminatory or bigotry towards other religions. At the outset of his rule,  Aurangzeb issued several farmans42 to the Brahmins of Banaras, Vrindavan etc regarding  temples and synagogues, that ‘long standing temple should not be demolished but no new  temples allowed to be built’. Further, old places of worship could be repaired. Because  Mughal treated temples lying within their sovereign domain as a State property, accordingly  they undertook to protect both the physical structures and their Brahmin functionaries. When  a subordinate non-Muslim officer, construct a religious structure without prior permission or  showed signs of disloyalty—and especially if he engaged in open rebellion—the state often  desecrated the temple(s) most clearly identified with that officer. Aurangzeb’s order  regarding ban on new temples did not, apparently lead to a large-scale destruction of temples.  Secondly, the order appears to have applied only to Banaras. 

In 1669 over the complains of governors, he learnt that some of the temples in Thatta,  Multan and especially in Banaras, both Hindu and Muslim used to come from great distances  to learn the liberal or subversive ideas from the Brahmans, which is not acceptable to the  orthodox elements. Then there were also several political opposition from a number of  quarters, such as the Marathas, Jats etc. Aurangzeb issued orders to the governors of all  provinces to put down such practices and to destroy the temples where such practices took  place.43 As a consequence of these orders, a number of temples such as the Keshava Rai at  Mathura, Vishwanath at Banaras were destroyed. According to Satish Chandra, ‘Aurangzeb’s  selective destruction or bricking up a number of Hindu temples, was either a warning to local  Hindu rajas or a reprisal for rebelliousness’44. Ma’āsir-i Ālamgīrī, quotes the destruction of  Kesava Rai temple as “On seeing this instance of the strength of the Emperor’s faith and the  grandeur of his devotion to God, the proud rajas were stifled, and in amazement they stood  like images facing the wall”.45 It was in this context that many temples built in Orissa during  the last ten to twelve years were destroyed. Furthermore, the destruction of several old  temples at Jodhpur46 and its parganas and in Udaipur47 was the result of long standing war  with Rathors and Sisodiyas during 1679-80.48 However a more recent and critical analysis by  Richard M. Eaton has proved that the estimated number of such temples for the whole of the  medieval period does not exceed 60 in all.49 He very ably examined this issue, where he dealt  that which temples were desecrated? When and by whom? How and for which purpose?50

It is wrong to say that Aurangzeb bans the non-Muslims from practicing their faith, as  long as they shows their loyalty to the ruler. Secondly, we did not have any farmān to the  governors ordering the general destruction of temples. Instead of that, we have several  instances of grants to Hindu temples and mathas by Aurangzeb. He gave grants to the  Gurudwara of Guru Ram Das at Dehra Dun. Such grants continued to be given to some of  the Vaishnava temples in Vrindavan, to the jogis at Jakhbar in Punjab, to the Nathpanthi jogis  in sarkār Nagaur, and a grant of 100 pakka bighās of land to Panth Bharati in pargana  Siwana in Rajasthan. Although an order had been issued in Gujarat in 1672 banning revenue

free grants to Hindus.51 The reason behind this order was the malpractice of assigning the  revenue-free grants to the rich Brahmins by the sadr or sadru-s sadur. When Aurangzeb had  the temple of Keshav Rai at Mathura destroyed in January 1670, this caused much alarm at  Vrindaban and Seo Ram Gusain went away from the town, carrying away the idols at  Govind-dev temple, which now left Vrindaban forever.52 Yet, actually the documents we  have do not even distantly refer to any destruction or desecration affecting any of the temples  at Vrindaban. On the other hand, in May 1671 in the middle of this period of alarm, Hasan  Ali Khan, the faujdar of Mathura, issued a parwāna directing that 135 bīghas of land held by  the late Raja Jai Singh of Amber on behalf of the Govind-dev temples, & c., under imperial  farmāns, should be maintained as per status quo and no interference therein should occur.53 Seo Ram himself returned in 1675 and set about looking after his properties in Mathura and  Vrindaban.54

The governor of Agra in an official order issued in 1704 credited Rūp and Haridas,  who were Chaitanya’s disciple, with having established their residence in Vrindaban when it  was all jungle and uninhabited.55 Thereafter the succeeding Goswamīs and their followers  began buying land in village Dosaich and the surrounding hamlets, numerous records of  which are preserved for us either in original or early copies in Persian as well as  Devanagari.56 Alongside this process of land acquisition there was a spate of temple  construction, which began to put even Mathura into the shade. This is revealed by an official  survey of temples of Mathura and its environs undertaken in 1598 with a view to establishing  which temples deserved imperial grants of land. The work is carried out by Abul Fazl with  the help of four (named) pundits, and their recommendations, as approved by Akbar, were set  forth in a singular farmān issued on 11 September 1598. Of the 35 temples recommended six  were situated in Mathura as against nineteen in the vicinity of Vrindaban.57 The Vrindaban  documents show definitely that all existing grants made by Akbar, Jahangir and Shahjahan to  Vrindaban and Mathura temples and priests were honoured under Aurangzeb (1659-1707) as  well.58 

One thing is important to note that Aurangzeb’s policy of newly built temple’s destruction is merely a continuation of his predecessors. Shahjahan, issued orders in 1632-33  for the destruction of all Hindu temples recently built throughout his dominions.59 In the  Banaras district, alone 76 temples were destroyed in compliance with that order.60 The cause  of the demolition was narrated as: “it was reported to His Majesty (Shahjahan) that during the  reign of the late Emperor (Jahangir), whose place is in Paradise, the work of construction of  many temples in Banaras was taken in hand, but could not be completed, and that some of the  wealthy people of the place wanted to complete it, the Emperor, Defender of the Faith, issued  orders that as in the case of Banaras, so in other places in the Kingdom all temples which had  newly came into existence (i.e. without permission) should be demolished. During this period  from the reports of the News Writer of the Allahabad it appeared that 76 temples were razed  to the ground in Banaras”.61

My object in mentioning this is not to indicate that I am against religious liberty, but  to show that it was the forerunner of coming events, namely, the Hindus began openly to  practice oppression upon the Muslims; Muslim women were forcibly taken in as wives in  their homes. More than this, they used to dismantle mosques and annex them to their  houses.62 Shaikh Ahmad Sirhindi in his letters noted several episodes of mosque demolition  and undue behaviour of Hindus.63 These facts are explained in detail in the Shāhjahān-nāma,  quote and unquote: “When the Magnificent banner (of the Emperor Shahjahan) reached the  outskirts of Gujrat (Punjab), a party of Saiyads and Shaikhs of that qasba complained that  some infidels had kept for their use both married and unmarried Moslem women; some of  them had annexed by for mosques to their houses. Upon this, the Emperor directed Shaikh  Mahmud Gujrati to enquire into the matter and upon receipt of reliable evidence to rescue the   women and separate the mosques from the houses. A thorough enquiry proved the truth of the  complaints and Shaikh Mahmud Gujrati after imposing a small fine upon the Hindus set at  liberty 70 women and restored to their original state the mosques which had been forcibly  annexed. When these full facts reached to the ears of the Emperor, he ordained that in  accordance with the old custom if anyone (i.e., Hindu) embraced Islam, then a Muslim  woman kidnapped by him would be allowed to remain with him after proper marriage. After  the issue of this order, a party of Hindus embraced Islam and married the women whom they  had kept by force. It was also ordered by the Emperor that wherever in his dominions such  events took place, the same decree should be followed”.64 In the Tuzuk, we have also several  examples where Muslim girls were imprisoned.65 

Look at all of the facts carefully and objectively. So long as Shahjahan wielded his  power by force, the operation of the Hindus remained under control. It will thus appear that  from the time of Jahangir, or even perhaps earlier, the Hindus were not allowed to construct a  new temple without the permission of the state. Shahjahan in order to enforce this policy had  to order the demolition of many temples in his dominions which had been built without  permission. 

Thus the Aurangzeb’s policy was merely a continuation of the policy of his  predecessors. Any historian who ascribes the policy underlying them to religious bias or  bigotry without examining thoroughly and impartially the political situation of the day shows  either political short-sightedness or distorted historical version. 

The researches also show that Hindu nobles were not discriminated on the basis of  their religion. Athar Ali’s, The Mughal Nobility Under Aurangzeb shows that the number of  Hindus in the nobility during the second half of Aurangzeb’s reign almost doubled with the  Hindus, including Marathas, forming about one-third of the nobility.66 During this period, the  position of Hindus would be clear from the data provided by him that: under Shahjahan  (1628-58) out of the 437 nobles from 5000 to 1000 zāt, 98 were Hindu [means 22.4 per cent],  whereas under Aurangzeb (1658-1701), out of 575 nobles 182 were Hindu [means 31.6 per  cent].67 He also inducted a large number of Marathas into the service during the latter half of  his reign. Of the 96 Marathas who held ranks of 1000 zat and above between 1679 and 1707,  16 held ranks of 5000 and above, 18 held ranks between 3000 and 4000 and 62 from 1000 to  2700, thus far surpassing the Rajputs. There is no doubt that the expansion of the nobility  under Aurangzeb, particularly after 1681, brought about an increase of Hindus at all levels of  the army, nobility and administration. Among the mansabdārs holding ranks above 500 zat  the proportion of Hindus increased from 22 per cent under Akbar in 1595, to 32 per cent  under Aurangzeb in the period 1679-1707. In other words, the number of Hindus in the  imperial service increased, both in absolute numbers and proportionately at all levels during  the second half of his reign.68

As far as the conversions are concerned, Aurangzeb considered it legitimate to  encourage conversion to Islam as a true follower of the faith, evidence of systematic or large scale attempts at forced conversion is lacking. The measures adopted by Aurangzeb led a  series of contradictions, which he found hard to resolve and most of these measures were to  satisfy the orthodox clerical elements as far as possible. The allegation that Aurangzeb’s measures were designed to convert India from darul-harb or a land inhabited by infidels to  darul-islam or a land inhabited by Muslims. This is not quite correct. 

These above mentioned liberal attitude and communal harmony lead to a composite  Mughal culture,69 which we saw in the morphology of the Mughal towns, such as Agra,  Fathpur Sikri, Surat, Ahmadabad etc. They were having a number of the mercantile classes as  their relationship70 and were generally centres of commerce.71 These towns, apart from the  nobles and Mughal bureaucracy, were inhabited by a multitude of religious scholars, both  Hindu and Muslim,72 artisans and craftsmen both skilled and unskilled, some self employed,  others in the service of the state.73 Not only that, in Shahjahanabad, Cambay and Ahmadabad  we get muhallas with both Hindu and Muslim living in each other’s neighbourhood.74 This  trend continued up till the eighteenth century. The syncretic tendencies in urban centres were  also influenced the education being imparted to the general masses.75 The maktabs or schools  in the urban centres were catering to both the Muslim and Hindu students. During the reign of  Shahjahan, Balkrishan Brahman ‘as per the tradition of the family’ was sent to study in the  maktab of Abdul Majid.76 It was he who taught him how to write.77 In Banaras, Thatta, and  Multan there were schools led by Brahmins where both Hindus and Muslims were imparted  education.78

In spite of Aurangzeb religious and political measures, the syncretic tendencies in the  Mughal Empire continued to flourish side by side with the growing communal trends. Isardas  Nagar, a contemporary of Aurangzeb, at one place opines: ‘The difference of religions and  sects, which in reality affirm the being of God, should not be seen in sectarian and communal  light’.79

At this juncture another question also arise that whether the Mughals imposed the  shariat, the Islamic law on their non-Muslim subjects, or, were the latter free to practice their  own rules and regulations? 

Badauni informs us that Akbar had appointed pundits to administer justice.80 He also  appears to have given the Hindu panchayats a formal place in the judicial system.81 Jadu  Nath Sarkar mentions certain Sanskrit judgements dating back to the reign of Akbar.82 That  the non-Muslims were not subservient to the Muslim law is further made clear from a farmān

of Shahjahan issued in 1634 regarding the Madan Mohan temple of Brindavan, Mathura. In  this farmān, Shahjahan not only refers to the worship taking place in the temple as ‘ibadat-i  ilahi’ (divine worship) but also refers to Hindus as khūda parast (God worshippers). Writing  in 1759, Orme corroborates this view when he says that the various sects of the “Gentoos”  (Hindus) in India were left free to follow their own religion and observances.83 Mughal  policy is more explicitly stated in the Fatawa-i Ālamgiri that “Non-Muslims (zimmis) of a  Muslim state were not subject to the laws of Islam. Their legal relations were to be regulated  according to the precepts of their own faith”.84

In spite of these tolerant tendencies the first recorded riot in a Mughal era took place  in 1711. On his accession to the throne Shah Alam Bahadur Shah ordered the inclusion of the  Shi’ite term wasi (vice regent) after the name Ali in the khutba, which was opposed by the  Muslim orthodoxy at Ahmadabad, Delhi and Lahore.85 With the accession of Farrukhsiyar,  two riots erupt in 171286 and 1713 at Delhi and Ahmadabad, respectively.87 It is quite  interesting to note that Ali Muhammad Khan hints that the riots were a result of trade rivalry  between the leader of the Bohra merchants, Mulla Abdul Aziz and the nagarseth Kapur  Chand Bhansali.88 In July 1720 communal tension was witnessed in the city of Agra over the  issue of an inter-religious marriage. However, the actual riots were somehow averted.89 Subsequently, two other riots occurred in Delhi in 1725 and 1729. The clash of 1729 was a  result of yet another minor incident. A Hindu jeweller was passing by in Chowk Sa’adullah  Khan, when someone let off a squib, which slightly burned his cloths. His servants in  retaliation attacked the nearby shoe-makers shops and killed two Muslims. As at Ahmadabad,  the Muslims shouted the slogan deen!deen! The Qazi and the khatīb reportedly sides with the  Hindus and as a result faced the brunt of the Muslim mobs.

Athar Abbas Rizvi while analyzing these riots of Delhi and Kashmir points out the  emergence of a ‘new leadership’ of the Muslims who replaced the traditional Irani and Turani  groups. This new group, comprising Arabs, Abyssinians, Turks and Afghans, was according  to him in the forefront of these riots.90 Bayly on the other hand finds that the undisciplined  Afghan soldiers behind these communal riots.91 Furthermore, these communal tensions and  riots which erupted in the post-Aurangzeb period were a result of the weakening of a strong  political authority. In spite of its weakness, we find that in almost all the incidents of strife,  the Mughal state and officials sided not with their co-religionists but the wronged. Thus it  would be wrong to call these early 18th century clashes “communal”, although they do reflect  a loosening of social identities and a shrinking city space nurtured so carefully by Akbar and  his successors. They, if at all, were the riots of vested interests from which the general masses  remained aloof. The seeds sown by Akbar bloomed until the dawn of the colonial rule in  India.

Notes

1 Christopher A. Bayly, ‘The Pre-History of Communalism: Religious Conflict in India, 1700-1860’, Modern  Asian Studies, vol. 19, no. 2, 1985, pp. 177-203; Satish Saberwal, ‘The Long Road to the Partition: Social and  Historical Perspective’, South Asian Survey, Vol. 8, No. 2, 2001, pp. 237-47. 

2 Brucle B. Lawrence, ‘Shahrastani on Indian Idol Worship’, Studia Islamica, No. 38, 1973, pp. 61-73.  Shahrastani was the first Muslim theologian to describe the Hindus as Sabians, Sabianism itself had a long  history as a quasi-historical, quasi-theological phenomenon stretching back to the origin of Islam. 

3 Romila Thapar, ‘Communalism and the Historical Legacy: Some Facts’, Social Scientist, Vol. 18, No. 6/7,  June-July, 1990, p. 4-20; See also Harbans Mukhia, ‘Communalism in the Writing of the Medieval Indian  History: A Re-Appraisal’, Social Scientist, Vol. 11, No. 8, August 1983, pp. 58-65. 

4 Muzaffar Alam, ‘State Building under the Mughals: Religion, Culture and Politics’, Cashiers d’Asie Central,  L’Heritage Timouride: Iran-Asie Centrale-Inde, XVe-XVIIIe Siecles, No. ¾, 1997, pp. 105-128; Ian Copland,  Asim Roy & ala, A History of State and Religion in India, Routledge, New York, 2014 

5 Those who own a God-sent book, i.e., Christians, Jews and Sabians, to whom the Zorastrians and Hindus in  India were later added. 

6 Annemarie Schimmel, ‘Religious Policies of the Great Mughals’, in Zeenut Ziad’s edited The Magnificent  Mughals, Oxford University Press, Oxford, 2002, pp. 61-81.

7 Such as jazya, pilgrimage tax, distribution of royal charities through Iltutmish (r. 1211-1236) by creating the  office of Shaikh ul Islam, and Sadr-us Sadur by Alauddin Khalji (d. 1316) etc. 

8Insha-i Abul Fazl, Lucknow, 1863, 1:63, cited from Muzaffar Alam, ‘Sharia and Governance in the Indo Islamic Context’, in Beyond Turk and Hindu: Rethinking Religious Identities in Islamic South Asia, edited by  David Gilmartin and Bruce B. Lawrance, University Press of Florida, 2000, pp. 237-238. 

9‘Abū’l Fazl, Akbarnāma (c.1601), trans., H. Beveridge, Royal Asiatic Society, Calcutta, 1897-1921, Vol. II,  pp. 242-243. 

10 Ibid., II, pp. 294-95. 

11 They had full religious freedom under Muslim rule. The men are exempted from military service. However,  since their lives, property and places of worship are protected, the able-bodied men have to pay an exemption  tax, jazya, in lieu of military service. At the time of Firoz Shah (r.1351-1388), and even earlier, the jazya was  not levied on Brahmins. But besides the jazya, an additional pilgrimage tax had been introduced by some  Muslim rulers. Annemarie Schimmel, op. cit., p. 61. 

12 Akbarnāma (c.1601), op. cit., II, pp. 316-317. 

13 For the details of all land grant see Tarapada Mukherjee and Irfan Habib, ‘Land Rights in the Reign of Akbar:  The Evidence of the Sale Deeds of Vrindaban and Antha’, PIHC, 50th Session, Gorakhpur, 1989-90, pp. 249- 54.

14 K. M Jhaveri (ed.) Imperial Farmāns (AD 1577 to AD1803) granted to the Ancestors…of the Tikayat  Maharaj, Bombay, 1928, Doc. II, Doc III is a similar order by Akbar’s mother, Hamida Bano Begam in 1581. 15 Ibid., Doc. IIIA and IVA. 

16 Ja’far Saljuqi’s Parwāna, G. D. Coll, cited from Irfan Habib’s, ‘Braj Bhum in Mughal Times’, presented in  the Indian History Congress, 70th session, Delhi University, Delhi, 15-17 may, 2010, p. 300.  17 Khafi Khan, Muntakhab-ul Lubab, pp. 93-95; see also M. Reza Pirbhai, Reconsidering Islam in a South Asian  Context, Brill, 2009, p. 103 

18 Akbarnāma (c.1601), op. cit., II, pp. 240-241. 

19 Abū’l Fazl, Akbarnāma (c.1601), op. cit. III, pp. 594-595. 

20 Ibid., III, p. 620. 

21 See for other details M Athar Ali, The Apparatus of Empire: Awards of Ranks, Offices and Titles to the Mughal Nobility, 1574-1658, Oxford University Press, New Delhi, 1985. 

22 ‘Abū’l Fazl, Ā’īn-i Akbarī (c.1595), ed., H. Blochmann, Bib. Ind., Calcutta, 1867-77; eng. tr., Vol. I, by H.  Blochmann, Calcutta, 1868, pp. 102-113. 

23 Som Prakash Verma, Mughal Painters and Their Work: A Biographical Survey and Comprehensive  Catalogue, Oxford University Press, 1994 and Painting the Mughal Experience, Oxford University Press,  2005; see also Geeti Sen, Paintings from the Akbar Nama: A Visual Chronicle of Mughal India, Lustre Press  Pvt. Ltd, 1984.

24 Audrey Truschke, ‘Regional Perceptions: Writing to the Mughal Court in Sanskrit’, Purusartha, Vol. 33, pp.  251-274 and ‘The Mughal Book of War: A Persian Translation of the Sanskrit Mahabharata’, Comparative  Studies of South Asia, Africa and the Middle East, Vol. 31, No. 2, 2011, pp. 406-420. 

25 For the details of Man Singh and other leading Hindu nobles of Akbar see ‘Abū’l Fazl, Ā’īn-i Akbarī (c.1595),  vol. I, Ain- 30: The Grandees of the Empire, pp. 347, 353, and 361 etc. See also Shāh Nawaz Khān, Ma’āsiru l Umarā (c.1742-80), ed., Maulvi Abdur Rahim and Maulvi Mirza Ashraf Ali, Bib. Ind., 3 vols., Calcutta,  1888-91; tr. by H. Beveridge, Bib. Ind., Calcutta, 1911. 

26 Jahāngir, Jahāngir-nāma or Tuzuk- i Jāhāngīrī (c.1624), ed., S. Ahmad, Ghazipur and Aligarh, 1863-64; eng.  tr., Alexander Rogers, ed., H. Beveridge, Vol. II, Low Price Publications, Delhi, 2006, pp. 49-52, 104-108.  27 Abul Fazl does not use the word Din-i Ilahi but Tauhid-i Ilahi or Divine monotheism, while Badauni uses  both the terms. 

28 The first mention of the new religion and its ten virtues are to be found in Muhsin Fanis’s work, Dabistan-i  Mazahib, written during the latter part of Shahjahan’s reign. The virtues mentioned are of a very general  nature, such as liberality and beneficence, loathing of evil, overcoming worldly lusts, purification of the soul  by yearning after God etc.

29 According to him, “he [Akbar] has a strong desire to be looked upon, and esteemed as a God, or some great  “Prophet”, and that he would have people believe that he performs miracles, healing the sick with the water  with which he washed his feet”. See Fr. A. Monserrate, Commentary of his Journey to the Court of Akbar,  trans., J. S. Hoyland, annotated by S. N. Banerjee, reprint, Cuttack, 1922. 

30 Muntakhāb-ut Tawārīkh (1595), II, p. 313. 

31 The four degrees of faith introduced which are often confused with Din-i Ilahi are first mentioned by Badauni  in 1580. These degrees consisted in ‘readiness to sacrifice to the Emperor property, life, honour and religion.  Whoever had sacrificed these things possessed the four degrees, and whoever sacrifices one of these four  possessed one degree’. There was nothing new in these degrees. Many Sufis had also asked their disciples to  make similar sacrifices. Cited from Ataur Rahman, ‘Aurangzeb and His Policy’, Journal of the Aligarh  Historical Research Institute, Vol. I, No. 1, April 1941, p. 110. 

32 I. H. Qureshi, The Muslim Community of the Hind-Pakistan Subcontinent, Karachi, 1947.  33 ‘Abū’l Fazl, Ā’īn-i Akbarī (c.1595), vol. I, Ain-77, pp. 170-175. 

34 John F.Richards, The New Cambridge History of India I.5: The Mughal Empire, Cambridge University Press,  1993, pp. 47-48. 

35 Ibid, pp. 91-93.

36 ‘Abdul Qadir Badauni, Muntakhāb-ut Tawārīkh (1595), ed. by Ahmad Ali and Lees, Bib. Ind., Calcutta,  1864-69; tr. by Lowe, vol. II, Royal Asiatic Society, Calcutta, 1924, p. 324; Akbarnāma (c.1601), II, p. 262.  See also Satish Chandra, Medieval India: From Sultanate to the Mughals; Part Two: Mughal Empire (1526- 1748), Har Anand Publications Pvt Ltd., New Delhi, 2011 (Revised Edition), pp. 176-177. 

37 Tuzuk- i Jāhāngīrī (c.1624), I, pp. 254-255. 

38 Najaf Haider, ‘The Char Bahar of Balkrishan Brahman: A New Source for the History of People and Places During Shahjahan’s Reign’, Workshop on The Mughal Empire Under Shah Jahan New Trends of Research,  Institute of Iranian Studies and Austrian Academy of Sciences, Vienna, May 2014 and ‘Translating Texts and  Straddling Worlds: Intercultural Communication in Mughal India’, in The Varied Facets of History. Essays in  Honour of Aniruddha Ray, eds. Ishrat Alam and Syed Ejaz Hussain, Primus, Delhi, 2011, pp. 115-124. 39 S. R. Sharma, op. cit., pp. 98-106. 

40 Jadunath Sarkar, Studies in Mughal India, M. C. Sarkar & Sons, Calcutta, 1919. 

41 Cited from Ataur Rahman, ‘Aurangzeb and His Policy’, Journal of the Aligarh Historical Research Institute,  Vol. I, No. 1, April 1941, p. 110.

42 The Banaras farmān is in the National Library, Calcutta and the Vrindavan farmān is presently in a temple at  Jaipur. 

43 Saqi Musta’idd Khan, Ma’āsir-i Ālamgīrī, Bib. Ind. ed., Calcutta, 1870-73, p. 81.

44 Satish Chandra, Medieval India: Historiography, Religion and State in Medieval India, Har Anand  Publications Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi, 2004, pp. 165-166. 

45 Ibid. Satish Chandra, Medieval India: From Sultanate to the Mughals; Part Two: Mughal Empire (1526- 1748), Har Anand Publications Pvt Ltd., New Delhi, 2011 (Revised Edition), pp. 278-279.  46 Ma’āsir-i Ālamgīrī, p. 185; Satish Chandra, ‘Some Factors Leading to the Break Between Aurangzeb and  Rana Raj Singh’, Proceedings of Indian History Congress, 1965. 

47 Ma’āsir-i Ālamgīrī, pp. 186, 189. 

48 Satish Chandra, Medieval India, Part Two, p. 279.

49 Richard M. Eaton, ‘Temple Desecration and Indo- Muslim States’, In Demolishing Myths or Mosques and  Temples, Sunil Kumar (ed.), Three essays collective, 2008, pp. 93-95; see also Muzaffar Alam, ‘Sharia and  Governance in the Indo-Islamic Context’, op. cit., p. 26. 

50 Richard M. Eaton, ‘Temple Desecration and Indo- Muslim States’, in Beyond Turk and Hindu: Rethinking  Religious Identities in Islamic South Asia, edited by David Gilmartin and Bruce B. Lawrance, University  Press of Florida, 2000, pp. 246-281. 

51 Satish Chandra, Medieval India: From Sultanate to the Mughals; Part Two, p.279.  52 Vrindaban Documents, NAI 2671/12 and 2671/13. 

5353 Govinda Dev temple documents, cited from Irfan Habib, ‘Braj Bhum in Mughal Times’, op. cit., p. 306;  54 Ibid., p. 306; R. A. Alvi, ‘The Temples of Vrindaban and Their Priest During the Reign of Aurangzeb’,  Proceedings of Indian History Congress, 1988. 

55 Irfan Habib, ‘Braj Bhum in Mughal Times’, op. cit., p. 301.

56 See the calendar of these annexed to Tarapada Mukherjee and Irfan Habib, ‘Land Rights in the Reign of  Akbar: the Evidence of the Sale Deeds of Vrindaban and Antha’, PIHC, 50th session, Gorakhpur, 1989-90, pp.  249-54.

57 Tarapada Mukherjee and Irfan Habib, ‘Akbar and the Temples of Mathura and its Environs’, PIHC, 48th  session, Goa, 1987, pp. 234-250 for an analysis of this farmān. The original is in the National Archives of  India and a copy in G. D. Collec, and another in M. M. Coll; See also Irfan Habib, ‘Raipur: Land Holdings  and Land Contrl in a Braj village in Mughal Times’, paper presented in the Indian History Congress, 72nd session, Punjabi University, Patiala, 10-12 December, 2011, pp. 157-165. 

58 Tarapada Mukherjee and Irfan Habib, \The Mughal Administration and the Temples of Vrindavan during the  Reigns of Jahangir and Shahjahan’, PIHC, 49th session, Dharwad, 1988, pp. 287-300.  59 ‘Abdul Hamīd lāhorī, Pādshāhnāma (1654-55), ed., Kabir Al-Din Ahmad, Abd Al-Rahim and W.N. Lees, vol. I, part i, Bib. Ind., Calcutta, 1866-72, p. 452; 

60 John F.Richards, The New Cambridge History of India I.5: The Mughal Empire, p. 122.  61 For details Inayat Khan, Shāhjahān-nāma, edited by E. Bedley and Z. A. Desai, Delhi, 1990, p. 154; S. Ram  Sharma, The Religious Policy of the Mughal Emperors, Asia Publishing House, London, 2nd Edition, 1962,  pp. 86-87. 

62 Cf. Ataur Rahman, ‘Aurangzeb and His Policy’, Journal of Aligarh Historical Research Institute, Vol. I, No.  1, April 1941, p. 112; see also Harbans Mukhia, The Mughals of India, Blackwell Publishing, USA, 2004, pp.  26-29. 

63 Yohannan Friedmann, Shaykh Ahmad Sirhindi: An Outline of His Thought and a Study of His Image in the  Eyes of Posterity, Montreal, 1971, p. 82.

64 S. Ram Sharma, op. cit., pp. 86-87; Ataur Rahman, op. cit., p. 112-113; Harbans Mukhia, op. cit., p. 33.  65 Tuzuk- i Jāhāngīrī (c.1624), op.cit., pp. 51, 332; Also see the S. R. Sharma, The Religious Policy of the  Mughal Emperors, op. cit. p. 62. 

66 M. Athar Ali, The Mughal Nobility under Aurangzeb, Oxford University Press, 1997, p. 31.  67 Ibid., pp. 31-32.

  68 There is no doubt that the expansion of the nobility under Aurangzeb, particularly after 1681, brought about  an increase of Hindus at all levels of the army, nobility and administration. Studies by M. Athar Ali (The  Mughal Nobility under Aurangzeb, Oxford University Press, 1997, p. 31) indicate that among the mansabdars holding ranks above 500 zat the proportion of Hindus increased from 22 per cent under Akbar in 1595, to 32  per cent under Aurangzeb in the period 1679-1707.

69 For other details of Mughal composite culture, one may see Syed Ali Nadeem Rezavi, ‘The Dynamics of  Composite Culture: Evolution of an Urban Social Identity in Mughal India’, local volume of papers presented  in Indian History Congress, 72nd Session, Punjabi University, Patiala, 10-12 December, 2011 by Aligarh  Historians Society, 2011, pp. 137-149. 

70 See for example Sebastian Manrique, Travels of Manrique S. J., tr. C. E. Luard & Hosten, London, 1914, vol.  II, p. 140. 

71 Abul Fazl, Akbarnāma,Bib. Ind., Calcutta, 1873-87, vol. II, p. 356; Ain-i Akbari, ed. Blochmann, Bib. Ind.,  Calcutta, 1867-77, vol. II, p. 240; Francois Pelsaert, Remonstratie or Jahangir’s India, tr. W. H. Moreland &  P. Geyl, Cambridge, 1925, p. 9. 

72 See Abdul Qadir Badauni, Muntakhab ut Tawārīkh, ed. Ahmad Ali & Lees, Bib.Ind., Calcutta, 1864-69, vol.  II, pp. 206, 275-276 etc; Ain-i Akbari, op. cit., pp. 268-70; Pelsaert, p. 77; Tavernier, Travels in India, 1640- 67, tr. V. Ball, London, 1925, vol. II, p. 242. 

73 Ain-i Akbari, I, pp. 294-301; Ali Muhammad Khan, Mīrāt-i Ahmadī, ed. Nawab Ali, Baroda, 1927, vol. I, pp.  286-87; see also Manrique, op. cit., II, p. 147; Tavernier, op. cit., II, p. 73; Pelsaert, op. cit., p. 46.  74 See for example a number of documents preserved in the National Archives of India, New Delhi. For example  NAI 2695/6, 8, 14, 16; NAI 2702/6; NAI 1364 etc. 

75 See for example J. J. Roy Burman, ‘Hindu-Muslim Syncretism in India’, Economic and Political Weekly, Vol.  31, No. 20, May 18, 1996, pp. 11-15, Gail Minault Graham, ‘Akbar And Aurangzeb- Syncretism and  Separatism in Mughal India A Re-Examination’, The Muslim World, Vol. 59, Issue 2, April 1969, pp. 106- 126. 

76 Letter of Jalāl Hisāri and Bālkrishan Brahman, BM. MS. Add. 16859 (Rotograph in the Research Library,  CAS in History, AMU, Aligarh), f. 97 (a). See also Surat Singh, Tazkira-i Pīr Hassu Tēli, MS., Research Library, Department of History, AMU, Aligarh, f. 120 (a). Shan Sarang Surat Singh, the author of Tazkira-i  Pīr Hassu Tēli, a petty bureaucrat during the reign of Shahjahan was similarly educated and trained at Lahore  by Abdul Karm. 

77 Ibid., ff. 65 (a)- 67 (b). 

78 For their description (imparting ‘vile learning’) and ultimate destruction by Aurangzeb, see Saqi Musta’id  Khan, Ma’āsir-i Ālamgīrī, Calcutta, 1870-73, p. 81. 

79 Isardas Nagar, Futūhāt-i Ālamgīrī, BM. MS. Add. 24884 (Rotograph in Research Library, CAS in History,  AMU, Aligarh) ff. 4 (a)- 5.

80 Badauni, Muntakhab-ut Tawarīkh, Calcutta, 1864, p. 356. 

81 Monserrate, p. 183; For the panchayat and its acceptance down to the reign of Aurangzeb, see Bilgram  Documents, nos. 21, 26. 

82 Sir J. N. Sarkar, Mughal Administration, 1954, p. 101. 

83 Robert Orme, Historical Fragments, pp. 280-81. 

84 Fatawa-i Alamgiri, tr. S. Amir Ali, ed., A. Rehman, Lucknow, 1932, II, p. 357. 

85 Shaikh Muhammad Murad, ‘An Untitled History of Aurangzeb and His Successors’, Bodleian, MS. Fraser no.  262, ff. 75 (b)-92 (b), cf. S. Athar Abbas Rizvi, Shah Waliullah and His Times: A Study of Eighteenth Century  Islam, Politics and Society in India, Canberra, 1980, pp. 112-114. 

86 Khafi Khan, Muntakhab ul Lubāb, Vol. II, Calcutta, 1850-74, pp. 757-60.

87 Najaf Haider, “ A ‘Holi Riot’ of 1714: Versions From Ahmedabad and Delhi”, in Living together Separately:  Cultural India in History and Politics, edited by Mushirul Hasan and Asim Roy, Oxford University Press,  2005, pp. 127-144. 

88 Mirāt, op. cit., I, pp. 405-406. 

89 Khafi Khan, op. cit., II, pp. 884. 

90 S. Athar Abbas Rizvi, Shah Waliullah and His Times, op. cit., pp. 219-220. 

91 C. A. Bayly, ‘The Pre-History of Communalism? Religious Conflict in India, 1700-1860’, vol. 19, no. 2,  1985, pp. 177-203; see also Sammyh S. Khan and Ragini Sen, ‘Where Are We Going? Perspective on Hindu Muslim Relations in India’, in C. J. Montiel (eds.), Peace Psychology in Asia, Springer, 2009, pp. 43-64.

 

Post a Comment

Oops!
It seems there is something wrong with your internet connection. Please connect to the internet and start browsing again.
Site is Blocked
Sorry! This site is not available in your country.
NextGen Digital Welcome to WhatsApp chat
Howdy! How can we help you today?
Type here...